SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Mad) 1517

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL
Thavaraj Pandian & Others - Appellant
Versus
State, rep.by Inspector of Police - Respondents
CRL.A. NO. 810 OF 1998
Decided On : 16 December 2002

Advocates Appeared: For the Appellants 1 and 2:Mr. N.Ramu, Advocate, For appellants 3 and 4:Mr. V.Gopinath, Senior Counsel for Ms.N.S.Nappinai. For the Respondent: Mr. E.Raja, Addl.P.P.

The recovery of stolen items and the absence of any explanation for the possession of the accused justified the presumption that the accused committed the murder and robbery. The court also emphasized the need for the State to frame rules regarding the 'prescribed manner' for taking measurements of finger prints from arrested persons.

Headnote:

Murder - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120-B, 302, 394 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

Latha, a housewife, was murdered in her home. The accused entered her house, threatened her, and stabbed her to death, stealing her jewelry. The accused were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty based on the recovery of the stolen jewelry and the knife used in the murder. The court also discussed the admissibility of the finger print evidence and the necessity for the State to frame rules regarding the 'prescribed manner' for taking measurements of finger prints from arrested persons.

Issues: The issues included the admissibility of evidence related to the recovery of stolen items, the sufficiency of the evidence to establish guilt, and the necessity for the State to frame rules regarding the 'prescribed manner' for taking measurements of finger prints from arrested persons.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recovery of stolen items and the absence of any explanation for the possession of the accused justified the presumption that the accused committed the murder and robbery. The court also emphasized the need for the State to frame rules regarding the 'prescribed manner' for taking measurements of finger prints from arrested persons.

Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of three of the accused based on the recovery of stolen items, but acquitted the fourth accused due to procedural irregularities in obtaining finger print evidence. The court also directed the State Government to frame rules regarding the 'prescribed manner' for taking measurements of finger prints from arrested persons.

Judgment :-

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM,J

Latha, an young house wife was alone in her house in the morning hours of 23-6-1992, after sending her husband to his shop for attending his business. The appellants/A-1 to A-4 gained entry into her house knowing that she was alone, threatened her to part with her jewels and when she refused, the accused stabbed her causing death and took away the jewels including mangalya sutra from her body and sped away with the booty.

2. With the abovesaid allegations, the first appellant/A-1 and the third appellant/A-3 were convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B I.P.C., 302 read with 34 and 394 I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offences under Sections 120-B and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C., the second appellant/A-2 was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 and 394 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offences under Sections 120-B and 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C. and the fourth appellant/A-4 was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each offences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A-1 to A-4 have preferred this criminal appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

"(a) The deceased Latha is the wife of P.W.2 Ganesan. P.W.1 Vijayaraghavan is the son of P.W.2's sister. The deceased and P.W.2 were residing in No.81, Thanappa Mudali Street, Madurai. P.W.1 along with his parents, was staying in the house situated in the neighbouring street.

(b) On 23-6-1992, at about 10 a.m., P.W.2 Ganesan, the husband of the deceased went to his jewellery shop to attend his business. At about 10.30 a.m., A-1 to A-4 entered into the house of the deceased and murdered the deceased with the knife and took away the thali chain and gold jewels from her body and went away after locking the door.

(c) P.W.1 Vijayaraghavan, at about 2 p.m., came to the house of the deceased to hand over the ever-silver box containing fish sambhar sent by his mother. When he knocked the door, there was no response. Then, he found that the door was locked from outside. So, he opened the lock and entered into the house. To his shock, he found that the deceased Latha died with injuries. Jewels were found missing. P.W.1 telephoned and informed this to P.W.2, the husband of the deceased. P.W.2 rushed to the scene and found the dead body of his wife in a pool of blood and thali and gold bangles were missing.

(d) At about 4.15 p.m., on 23-6-1992, P.W.1 came to the Police Station and gave a complaint to P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police. He registered a case and sent the complaint and F.I.R. to the Court and informed the message to the Inspector of Police.

(e) P.W.13 Inspector of Police, came to the scene and prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar and Ex.P-27 rough sketch. He conducted inquest. The inquest report is Ex.P-28. He recovered the blood stained sticks which contained cotton, spectacles and blood stained swabs (M.Os. 10 to 12).

(f) P.W.16, the finger print expert came to the scene as per the order in Ex.P-37. He visited the scene at about 5 p.m. and found out the chance prints in betel nut box (M.O.15). P.W.14 photographer of forensic laboratory took photos of chance prints found on the betel nut box M.O.15. The finger print photo is M.O.13 and photo negatives are Ex.P-29 series. The report of the finger print expert is Ex.P-38.

(g) The intimation regarding the finger print expert are Exs.P-39 and P.40. They sent the betel nut box to the court on 3-7-1992.. along with the letter Ex.P-44.

(h) On 1-7-1992, P.W.13 handed over the investigation to P.W.15, another Inspector of Police. On 23-7-1992, P.W.15 arrested A-1 to A-3 and on the confession of A-1, M.O.1 thali and M.O.16 kerch








































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top